[Closed] I've always liked the idea of gay marriage and this why....

Is this you coming out of the closet?

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

It was the obvious response Julian!

I hope I'm not coming out....my wife would be most upset.

Its mawkish sentimentality. Not a good basis for making law.

Its mawkish sentimentality. Not a good basis for making law.

You're a bloody idiot sometimes TJ.

We're talking about marriage for crying out loud. Of course it's based on sentimentality otherwise what's the point?

People love each and want to get married. That's the whole ball game.

The equality issue is not unimportant, but it's the effect that it has on peoples' lives that really makes this subject come alive.

Geeteee - no

I am an idoit for having a diffent view to you?

I have a view that is that laws should be made on a rational basis. let mawkish sentimentality cloud the issues and you get bad law. To me that says a lot about how the US gets such bad law -by letting the heart rule the head

Its mawkish sentimentality. Not a good basis for making law

Seriously? 😯

Looks like this attempt is drifting even quicker than the first one

Yes

I've always liked the idea of gay marriage and this why....

Can't say it appeals to me

What business is it of the state to get involved in anyone's relationships, gay or straight, with their bogus unenforceable marriage contracts?

I have a view that is that laws should be made on a rational basis.

•It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament
•It could be regarded an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British king or queen's image upside-down
•Eating mince pies on Christmas Day is banned
•In the UK, a pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants
•The head of any dead whale found on the British coast automatically becomes the property of the King, and the tail of the Queen
•It is illegal not to tell the tax man anything you do not want him to know, but legal not to tell him information you do not mind him knowing
•It is illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament wearing a suit of armour (3%)

yes TJ when getting married you should pay no attention to your feelings..i am sure we all sat down did a pros and cons list and then a risk benefit analysis and then decided to get married or not...well anything else would be mawkish sentimentality obviously and if there is one area where you should pay no heed to your heart I am sure we all agree it is in whom you should marry.

Good call

Are you competing for al's BS of the week thread?

I am an idoit for having a diffent view to you?

No because I am 99.9% sure that you are in favour of gay marriage as well and if you want that as an outcome here, there, wherever, then mawkish sentimentality is what gets it done.

You don't win election, change the world or make people think differently by being rational and you don't change people's minds without changing their hearts first.

That's why I think you're being a bloody idiot - not because you disagree with me (I've said it before and I will say it again, I love your ideas even if I don't always agree with them!)

I think STW needs a new law. It should state that everytime someone posts on a thread it should be preceded by "in my opinion". I think that would save us a whole lot of hassle.

In my opinion there was nothing mawkish about that speech. Sentimental yes, but totally sincere with it. She strikes a good balance between heart and head and I'm sure more people would take an interest in politics if there were more politicians like that.

I'm kind of with TJ on this, why should marriage have anything to do with the state or the law, gay or not? It's an agreement between two people, hopefully made for loving reasons but sometimes not, but it shouldn't be recognised in law or idolised by society as anything other than that.

Junkyard - you can be as sentimental as you like when getting married - however[i] making laws[/i] on the basis of sentimentality / emotion leads to bad law.

See, I agree with TJ on that too.

I'm kind of with TJ on this, why should marriage have anything to do with the state or the law, gay or not?

OK, I can see your point but it does sound like you're saying we should abolish marriage altogether, at least in its current form. You would just end up with something that two people agree informally with each other. Is that what you're advocating?

If two people are in love and want to get married, I don't think its really up to anybody but them.

I could be way off here since I've not followed the back story, but isn't the issue that the law does NOT allow gay marriage to happen and that is what they want to overturn?

WHat TJ/IHN seem to be saying for is nothing to do with gay/straight, simply that marriage has no place in law. That's another debate entirely.

I'm with TJ too
Where possible the emotion needs to be kept out of law making

re the VT: She's goes on about twice as long as I'm prepared to listen to it TBH

however making laws on the basis of sentimentality / emotion leads to bad law.

OK let me give a scenario and tell me what you think about it.

Let's say that as a result of that speech in the clip above, enough people in the House feel moved to vote in favour of gay marriage. Let's say that they hear those words and they realise that the experience of an individual, in love with another individual, is all that matters and on that basis who are they to deny the union of marriage.

So the law gets passed and (it being a state not a federal issue notwithstanding) the USA now allows and recognises gay marriage.

Is that a good, bad or indifferent outcomes (Oh and feel free to take a completely different perspective, I'm genuinely interested).

I think the best basis for making law is when it literally could be a childs face next time!

Like the dangerous dogs act

How about keeping laws on the basis of homophobia. Because thats what it seems to me. One law for straight, one for gay.

stilltortoise - no i am saying laws need to be made rationally not on the basis of emotion

geetee - that would be a good outcome from a bad process and I would rather the process was robust and good so as to get good law in all circumstances

TJ how about

'most laws need to be made on a rational basis but some laws are by their nature deeply emotive and it would be impossible and in many cases undesirable to keep the emotion out'.

To what extent could you agree with that statement?

Just leave marriage as a rite/ritual/sacrament of religions, where it came from. The state doesn't do or legally recognise a version of communion, bar mitzvah, dastaar bhandi or deathbed ceremonies, so why marriage? Me and mrsmidlife have managed 27 years so far without anyone muttering incantations over our rings.

[i]you're saying we should abolish marriage altogether, at least in its current form.[/i]

Not at all.

[i]WHat TJ/IHN seem to be saying for is nothing to do with gay/straight, simply that marriage has no place in law[/i]

[i]If two people are in love and want to get married, I don't think its really up to anybody but them.[/i]

This is what I mean.

However, given that the state does have to give permission for one type of person to marry another, then they should allow gay people to marry. If that's more likely 'cos of the lady's speech (which I haven't watched cos I'm at work) then good on her.

I'm really confused now.

Are the gayers allowed to get wed or what?

Me and mrsmidlife have managed 27 years so far without anyone muttering incantations over our rings.

since I turned 50 the NHS seems particularly interested in mine 😯

Fair enough TJ. That's not how I'd read it. I still maintain that there is room for heart/emotion when campaigning for changes in the law. Do you think Pankhurst was all head and no heart?

The gay marriage issue is interesting since for many there is NO rational reason why gay people should not have the same rights in marriage as straight people. If the head argument is nullified, where do you turn?

Me and mrsmidlife have managed 27 years so far without anyone muttering incantations over our rings.

That's great. But when one of you dies it's going to be very messy.

The simple fact is that the most valuable aspect of marriage (or civil union) is that it is recognised as binding by the state. That recognition, which cannot easily be undone, is why marriage is both a sentimental and a rational engagement.

What I mean is, making a commitment to your partner is one thing, standing up and saying to everyone else, formally, and with a binding contract to it, is another. I am not saying that everyone needs or should make that extra degree of commitment, but I am saying that for a lot of people, it's that very public statement that makes it special.

[i]Are the gayers allowed to get wed or what?[/i]

Sort of. Would you like to feel my ring on your finger? 😉

Mods - it's a joke, I'm not homophobic, it's not even a homophobic joke...

Conversely, while having no desire to get married, we'd probably be up for a civil partnership, as it would be a heck of a lot easier for contractual, next of kin issues, parental responsibility and inheritance planning than cohabitation. That's not an option for us because of our sexuality.

😆

Rational law - Costs £35k a year to keep a convicted muderer in jail per year. 40 years = £1,400,000. Rational solution - execute him.

Emotional law - Executing is wrone morally. Morals being part of our human emotional baggage, therefore emotional law is jail for life and no executing.

geetee1972 - Member

TJ how about

'most laws need to be made on a rational basis but some laws are by their nature deeply emotive and it would be impossible and in many cases undesirable to keep the emotion out'.

To what extent could you agree with that statement?

Disagree 100%

[i]The simple fact is that the most valuable aspect of marriage (or civil union) is that it is recognised as binding by the state. [/i]

Surely the most valuable aspect of a marriage is the loving bond between two people, who shouldn't really give a to$$ whhat the state, or anyone else thinks?

[i]That's not an option for us because of our sexuality. [/i]

Really? Not wishing to get personal, but why? Or are you not in the UK?

The only valuable thing is the loving bond between [s]two [/s]as many people as want it, free to move on without impediment when one or more of them gets to be too much of a dick.

Surely the most valuable aspect of a marriage is the loving bond between two people, who shouldn't really give a to$$ whhat the state, or anyone else thinks?

I agree with that to some degree and for sure there are people for whom that is 100% true but I find it quite an insular perspective; we're not hermits after all, we are part of something.

I think it's hard for humans to achieve that degree of self confidence. Most peoples' natural inclination is to be accepted by their peers and society in general.

IHN - civil partnerships are only available for gay folk.

Let's not get into semantics again. Civil marriage and civil union, in my view they're the same thing that differ by virtue of one word and absolutely no material difference to the outcome.

Disagree 100%

I wouldn't have pegged you as an 'absolutist' TJ; I thought you would have allowed 1% because nothing is 100% certain. I am almost sure of this.